Thank you for kindly inviting me to comment on Dr. Betsy
Clark's letter which was published in the December issue of the
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare. In her letter, Betsy explains
her position on the affair of the guest editorial. I have told Betsy
that I understand the challenges of her job and did not wish to put
additional pressures on her. I also understand the wider political
pressures facing NASW and do not deny that caution needs to be exercised
when material containing politically risky content is reviewed for
publication in NASW journals. However, we have an honest difference of
opinion about the procedures that should be followed when deciding on
the inclusion of politically risky content. I respectfully disagree with her position, and the existing policy, and have told her so.

I was not intending to respond to Betsy's letter but it
unfortunately contains factually incorrect statements which I cannot let
pass. Betsy writes that, "After deliberation, we asked Dr. Midgley
to make very slight modifications to his editorial, primarily removing
the names of government officials." She goes on to say, "Dr.
Midgley strenuously objected to the request, and indicated that he would
publish his editorial elsewhere if we required any changes."

I am sorry that Betsy's memory is clouded on this issue. The
fact is that I was never asked to make any changes or given any
opportunity to discuss the issue or to reach a compromise. The first
communication I had from NASW about the problem came out of the blue in
an e-mail from a NASW staffer, Ms. Schandale Kornegay on May 3rd, 2006,
who informed me that the inclusion of the names of certain
neoconservative intellectuals and government officials in my guest
editorial had been reviewed by the association's leadership and
that it had been decided that the editorial will run without the names
and this is a final decision. It was clear that there was to be no
discussion on the matter and that I would be afforded no opportunity to
compromise. I had no choice except to withdraw permission for NASW to
publish the editorial. However, I immediately wrote to Betsy and the
NASW President, Elvira de Silva hoping more fully to debate the issue
but neither responded. However, I did receive a letter of apology from
Jorge Delva, the editor of Social Work who wrote to me after a meeting
of the journal's editorial board. In his letter he expressed regret
that I was not consulted on the matter. After repeated efforts to
communicate with Betsy, I also received a generous apology from her for
the lack of consultation. Both letters confirm that I was not consulted
or given an opportunity to discuss the NASW leadership's concerns.

It is unfortunate that I am being characterized as a pigheaded author who refused to agree to a minor copy change. This is simply not
correct! I should also point out that I never asked anyone to intercede
on my behalf. Instead, I was and still am committed to advocating for an
open the debate on the issues arising from the disagreement over the
guest editorial. As a loyal NASW member and recipient of several NASW
awards (and I may add, co-editor of three books published by NASW
Press), I believe the issue of how politically risky content in NASW
publications should be adjudicated deserves wider discussion among
NASW's membership. In compliance with the Code of Ethics, I also
believe we have a responsibility to engage in advocacy and accordingly,
I approached colleagues in leadership positions in NASW in an attempt to
have the issue debated by the Board. Although they were able to have the
issue discussed, no decision was taken and, as I understand it, the
procedures used to review material submitted for publication in NASW
journals were not modified.

Although I gave up on the hope that the NASW leadership could be
persuaded to change its decision on the guest editorial, I have not
given up on my efforts to have an open debate on the policies and
procedures currently used to review politically risky content. In view
of the outcome of the 2006 Congressional election, it now seems somewhat
strange that we should even be discussing the issue of censorship.
Clearly, the climate of fear that the Bush administration created in
earlier years has dissipated and I doubt whether my guest editorial
would have been rejected had it been submitted later this year. However,
this is not the real issue. The real issue is whether professional
associations should censor politically risky material and, if so, how
this should be done.

It is, in my view, unacceptable that material accepted for
publication after due editorial and peer review should be subjected to
administrative and legal review without any consultation with editors,
editorial boards or authors. I believe that this issue should be widely
discussed, particularly by members who write for NASW. If the issue is
not resolved, there is a risk that they may in the future decline to
submit material to NASW out of concern that their work may be subjected
administrative and legal review without editorial or peer oversight and
full consultation with authors. Even worse, there is a risk that future
articles published in NASW journals may be viewed as having passed the
scrutiny of NASW censors and that their content is politically safe and
unthreatening to the interests of those who hold political power. It
this happens, few critical social work scholars will want to have their
work published in NASW journals.

If the issues arising out of NASW's decision to censor my
innocuous guest editorial, and the association's existing review
policy as outlined by Betsy Clark are scrutinized, debated and resolved
in a satisfactory way, our disagreement will have been worth it.

James Midgley

School of Social Welfare

University of California, Berkeley

Dear Dr. Leighninger,

When I was asked to comment on the exchange between Jim Midgley and
Betsy Clark the first thing I did was to look up the definition of
politics and check the law. Among the many meanings of politics the most
pertinent is that it is, "the art or science concerned with guiding
or influencing governmental policy" (Merriam, 2006). In the
relevant section in the Internal Revenue Code under 501 (c) it says,
"... an IRC 501(c)(4), IRC 501(c)(5), or IRC 501(c)(6) organization
may conduct political intervention activities and may establish and
control a separate segregated fund to conduct exempt functions under IRC
527, so long as political intervention is not its primary activity"
(IRC 501 (c), 2006). IRC 527 refers specifically to political
organizations.

The dictionary definition contains two different implications about
politics. One is active. In the practice of politics there is only art.
The other is passive. The only science of politics is to study it. This
leads to interpretations of the law which appear contradictory. Open
Secrets organization says that 501 (c) (6) organizations "... are
not supposed to engage in any political activities, though some voter
registration activities are permitted" (Open, 2006). While the ban
is proclaimed as total there is also a very active exception identified.

The point of all this parsing of politics and the law is to make
clear that what the Code is talking about is active intervention in the
political process. The Code allows some latitude but doesn't
indicate how much. Reading the editorial against this standard I did not
find a hint of any political activity. The editorial is a rather
abstract academic policy analysis. That is, it is passive science with
no indication that Midgley is urging anyone to do anything related to
engaging in a political process. There is a global warning that social
workers should guard against the dangers of unipolarism but this, too,
is not attached to any behavior recommendations. Policy analysis is not
political activity under the law.

I wondered how consistent NASW was in forbidding even a hint of
political activity in Social Work. It did not take long to find an
exception. Steen (2006), in an April 2006 editorial whose title has the
phrase "a call to action" says, "The Bush Administration
has sought to weaken the definition of torture and limit the application
of torture prohibitions to narrow circumstances" (2006, p. 102).
This is political analysis at a level which is objected to in
Midgley's editorial. The editorial goes further and urges social
workers to join Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties
Union. NASW professes a desire to get along better with Republicans. To
sanction an editorial which attacks the president and urges members to
join groups that the administration generally disagrees with is, on its
face, political action. Just examine the PACE endorsements in the last
election to put to rest the idea that NASW has any intention of forming
alliances with Republicans.

In this dispute, the who said what's and when's are
irrelevant. There is a larger issue. This is an example of a problem
that has become endemic in our society--the lack of trust. That such a
loyal member of the politically correct establishment as Jim Midgley
became a victim may surprise him and others, but not me. His sin was to
write a direct and straightforward analysis of how he viewed our present
situation. He did not use the language of politics. Orwell defined it
thusly, "Political language--and with variations this is true of
all political parties...--is designed to make lies sound truthful and
murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure
wind" (1961, p. 367). Perhaps if he had used more
"political" language he would have fared better.

The lack of trust permeates all levels in our society. This starts
at the top. People have little confidence in the presidency or congress.
Politics has come to revolve more around personality than issues.
Meacham (2006), in a review of James McGregor Burns book on presidential
politics, says that one of his central arguments is that, "... the
proliferation of presidential campaigns centered on the candidate, not
on a larger party has turned politicians into free agents more
interested in their own survival on election day than they are in
governing once they are in office" (2006, p. 3).

NASW reflects a special case of this emphasis on personality. The
organization is not run by people embedded in their craft. It is
substantially manned by technical specialists interested mainly in
organizational maintenance. Strangely, the leadership is political to
the core. During the 1930s in the midst of a depression and with labor
union strength at a low ebb, John L. Lewis, a Republican, helped create
a Congress of Industrial Organizations that won strikes and forged
strong unions. One of the rules of the CIO was that no one could take on
a leadership role if they did not start out as a worker. As time went
on, unions changed these rules and hired specialists without factory
work experience. They also became more political. I wonder if their
current weakness comes from abandoning first principles.

The people who run NASW cannot distinguish between political
analysis, a legitimate function, and political activity, a forbidden
function. Mechanic (2006) has noted that when legislators pass laws to
solve problems and bureaucrats write regulations to interpret them,
there is a high likelihood of unintended consequences. He says that new
malpractice regulations have forced doctors into expensive defensive
medicine, mental health laws make mental institutions release patients
inappropriately, and protection of human subjects laws have made it
difficult for people to participate in research. Editorial interference
can be added to this list. In the recent past, the editors of such
distinguished journals as The Journal of the American Medical
Association and The New England Journal of Medicine have resigned over
conflicts dealing with their editorial independence. Midgley's
experience is not unique. Even though this conflict arose without the
editor's knowledge, there is no evidence concerning what he intends
to do.

Midgley's answer to all of this is to say that NASW is insular
He proposes to open things up for debate. This is a gentlemanly and
academic response. It will take more than discussion to correct this
problem. Once battle lines are drawn around issues such as this one, it
is seldom that one side or the other changes in the short run. NASW is,
alas, not insular but very much a part of the institutions that have
brought this society to lose faith in public and private institutions.
To change this something more is needed--a new politics.

Midgley was judged by people who have little idea of how policy
analysts think and write. They have a lawyer's mentality that
avoids even possible exceptions. In this instance, they saw something
that wasn't there. There is a dearth of NASW leadership that knows
how to inspire people and bring about change. We face devastating problems in our areas of professional expertise. For example, extensive
damage has been done to children and their families because of major
deprofessionalization and withdrawal of resources for child welfare.
Little effective action is visible on these fronts. Anyone who ever
heard it will not forget John L. Lewis, during one of his monumental
battles with management and the government, summoning up Shakespeare and
saying, "A plague on both your houses."

Steen, J. (2006). "The roots of human rights advocacy and a
call to action." Social Work, 51(2): 101-105.

Dear Dr. Leighninger,

Given the political agenda and lobbying program of NASW, I
certainly respect NASW's need to protect organizational interests.
However, censorship seems to go against the grain of journalism. It may
well be that NASW needs to consider an organizational disclaimer for
publications which do not represent the views of NASW and are the sole
views of the authors who are entitled to express opposing views.

Sincerely, Wilma Peebles-Wilkins

Dean Emerita, Boston University

Former Editor, NASW Children and Schools

Dear Dr. Leighninger,

The censoring that went on in the case of Jim Midgley is very
consistent with the interference I received from the Publisher when I
was Editor of Social Work. In response, I encouraged the Executive
Director to (1) hire professionals to run the Press, (2) have
consultants come in to advise re: direction, or (3) outsource the Press
altogether. I continue to think this would be a good idea.

Sincerely,

Jeanne Marsh

Former Editor

Social Work

Dear Dr. Leighninger,

At the moment I happen to be in China, where scholars do not always
report data or say what they think about particular policies, key
people, or statements by the government. Chinese scholars adapt to these
unfreedoms; they self-censor and do as well as they can. But no scholar
thinks this is ideal. I do not point this out to criticize China, which
has a very different history from America and is gradually opening up.
The question I have for the editors of Social Work is whether this kind
of restricted discourse is something they are aspiring to? The editorial
by Jim Midgley is naming actual publications, ideas, initiatives, public
intellectuals, and major policy makers. What is the problem here? If we
cannot talk openly about public matters, publications, and key people,
it will be more difficult to come to clear understandings, build
knowledge, and make good decisions as a nation. Democracy depends on
transparency and open discourse for its very survival.

I cannot help but recall earlier periods in the United States when
social reformers like Ida B. Wells and Jane Addams took on major
corporate and political interests in promoting rights, community
development, peace, and internationalism. No weak-kneed self-censorship
from these ladies. Is it time for NASW to take stock of its foundations
and reset its bearing?

Sincerely, Michael Sherraden

Editor

Social Development Issues

Dear Dr. Leighninger,

From 1937 to 1942, a long-forgotten magazine called Social Work
Today (no relation to the current Social Work Today) was publishing
articles on unionization, foreign policy, race and class. At its height
it had about 6,000 subscribers and was well-respected by social work
notables such as Bertha Reynolds, Mary van Kleeck, Grace Marcus, Grace
Coyle, Mary Simkhovitch and others. Contributors to the magazine
included luminaries like Frances Perkins, Roger Baldwin, John L. Lewis
and A. Philip Randolph. A left-wing magazine, Social Work Today was
closely allied with the nascent social work union movement of the 1930s.
When the magazine ceased publication in 1942, Bertha Reynolds noted that
"with the death of Social Work Today a light has gone out of social
work."

Two principals in Social Work Today were Jacob Fisher and George
Wolfe, who ended up being harassed and blacklisted by the McCarthyites
in the early 1950s. At the time, NASW (established in 1955) and its
predecessor the American Association of Social Workers said and did
nothing. Social work professional organizations were conspicuous by
their silence. Presumably, Fisher and Wolfe were not the only social
workers who were victims of the McCarthy era. In the face of repression,
these professional organizations retreated into arcane discussions about
casework and group work, and preoccupied themselves with esoteric but
heated debates around the functional versus the diagnostic schools of
therapy. In fact, social work organizations did not raise their heads
until the relative safety of the 1960s. When safe, they became
vociferous advocates for the poor, the downtrodden, and the
disenfranchised. In short, being fearful of including the names of
government officials in Midgley's editorial is hardly an historical
precedent; it reflects a long-standing commitment to sitting out the
heat.

If dissidents were rounded up in concentration camps, social work
organizations would lobby to make sure they had enough blankets. Perhaps
this is behind Elizabeth Clark's statement that "The notion
that NASW is reluctant 'to take on the administration' or
'to stand up to the right' is simply uninformed. We do it
every day through our advocacy, through our lobbying, and through our
PAC work and grassroots organizing--but we do it in appropriate ways and
within legal and regulatory requirements." I suppose NASW would
also lobby for blankets in "appropriate ways and within legal
requirements."

Character--or the lack thereof--shines through in adversity.
It's easy to be tough in a liberal democratic milieu that respects
civil liberties; it takes much more courage to stand up to a paranoid
right-wing administration composed of zealots like G. W. Bush, Donald
Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and John Bolton, who get nourishment
from ideologues like William Kristol and Gary Schmitt.

Maybe now that the Democrats control both Houses, NASW will feel
safe and come out from under their blankets to give a little squeal. If
a Democratic president is elected in 2008 they might even muster up the
courage to roar, at least until the next hostile administration takes
power. In the end, one can only hope that NASW finds the gumption to
forego the censor's ink. Long live courage!

Sincerely, Howard Karger

Professor

Graduate College of Social Work University of Houston

Dear Dr. Leighninger,

In Lewis Carroll's classic--Alice's Adventures in
Wonderland, our heroine begins her journey by falling down a rabbit
hole. Upon landing, Alice explores a most peculiar world where up is
down, large is small, crazy tea parties are arranged, a smiling cat
fades away, and a Queen commands "Off with her head!" There
have been many interpretations of Lewis Carroll's work, and one
that I have come to appreciate is that this is really a cautionary tale
about the importance of ideas (even nonsensical ones), the need to
recognize differing views, and the necessity of debate and discourse.
Attempts to squelch any of the processes, as the Queen tries to do to
Alice, is antithetical to human growth and understanding. We are
enriched by the lively exchange of perspectives, thoughts and opinions.

So I was saddened, and exasperated, to hear of what had transpired
between Jim Midgely and the staff at NASW Press. As I understand the
situation, Jim submitted an Editorial--which is, by definition, an
opinion piece. Personally, I thought the editorial was, given the topic,
quite measured and balanced (indeed, if I had any criticism, I thought
Jim was too fair--but that's for another letter). Yet Jim
apparently made the "mistake" of naming some policy makers;
all well-known for their design and endorsement of particular stances.
They are public figures and if one follows their positions, it is quite
apparent that they are proud of their work. Jim wasn't stating
anything new; he wasn't "outing" some closet
intellectuals. Rather, he was doing what any responsible educator ought
to do--he was making a connection between the responsibilities that
social workers have, given our endorsement of social justice, and some
well-known foreign policy positions. In turn, readers are free to
disagree with Jim. And I believe that Jim would welcome such a debate,
knowing that he and anyone else who participated with an open mind would
probably learn something new and benefit from the exchange.

Censorship is the publishing industry's version of "off
with her head." And with logic reminiscent of the conversation
found at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party, Betsy Clark has attempted to
explain it away by suggesting that Jim (and others) don't really
comprehend all the complexities of the situation, and besides, it
wasn't THAT bad because it was just some minor changes and by the
way, NASW already does some advocacy. Well, here's what I do
understand: what NASW Press staff did was wrong. Jim's Editorial
should not have been altered. "Minor" changes do matter, if
for no other reason than it makes it easier to trim away greater pieces
of information in the future. Lobbying for issues doesn't provide
you with the capital to then engage in censorship.

Some may be saying that I, and others, are making a big deal out of
nothing. To them, I would say that integrity is eroded through seemingly
small incidents such as this, until eventually no one is allowed to
express an opinion. If, as social workers, we truly embrace justice and
dignity, then we also need to preserve forums in which varying views can
be presented. That's all Jim was doing. He was trying to get us to
think.

Sincerely,

Cheryl A. Hyde

Temple University

Past Editor, Journal of Progressive Human Services

Editorial board member of 5 social work and

social science journals

Dear Dr. Leighninger:

Absurd as NASW's abstemiousness with respect to Jim
Midgley's critique of neoconservatism in international development,
the incident represents little more than a hypocritical hiccup compared
to the corruption, ineptitude, and mediocrity that suffuses Social
Work's editorial practices. These are serious accusations, to be
sure; but, the Midgley incident reveals mischief of a decidedly more
malignant nature: chronic editorial failure.

Corruption: Half of the October 2000 issue of Social Work featured
articles that were solicited by the then-Editor-in-Chief and could not
have been vetted according to professional editorial standards. Of the
four invited articles, each of which rhapsodized about postmodernism,
three were received on May 4, 2000 and accepted on May 9, 2000; the
fourth was received May 8, 2000 and accepted May 9, 2000. The remaining
articles in the issue were peer-reviewed, typically received sometime in
1998 and accepted for publication in 1999. The Editor-in-Chief, in other
words, used Social Work as his own ideological billboard, rushing essays
he favored into print while bumping other articles in line for
publication, manuscripts which had been vetted through the normal
peer-review process. This misuse of editorial policy exacerbated Social
Work's backlog which provoked the ire of one reader who complained
that the eleven articles in a subsequent issue of the journal averaged
35.3 months in gestation, "virtually three years!" (1) In
response, the new Editor-in-Chief, promised "expanded issues"
to reduce the backlog. (2)

Ineptitude: And what has been Social Work's promise to improve
its efficiency in distributing articles to the professional community?
In 1986 I conducted a survey of ten professional journals to determine
the time from submission to acceptance/rejection as well as the period
from acceptance to publication. On both factors, Social Work ranked
last, requiring 24 months, averaging twice as long as other journals, to
process manuscripts. The most timely journal was the American Bar
Association Journal which conducted the entire process in 4.5 months;
closer to health and human services, the American Journal of Nursing
required 15 months, while the American Journal of Public Health only 8
months. (3) By contrast, the April 2004 issue of Social Work required
40.8 months, or 3.4 years, to move an article from submission to
publication. Even if the article had been accepted, the April 2004 issue
of Social Work exceeded the previous 24 month period for publication:
the lapse between acceptance and publication was 27.7 months, or 2.3
years. For the July 2006 issue, the period from submission to
publication was reduced to 37 months, still longer than that of two
decades earlier. During this time frame the advent of electronic
technology would be expected to abbreviate, not increase, the period
from submission to publication. Compared to other professions which have
accelerated the distribution of information to their professional
communities through electronic publishing, Social Work continues to
resemble a time capsule.

Mediocrity: John Pardeck and Roland Meinert's analysis of
Social Work's editorial board and consulting editors raised warning
flags about the scholarship of the journal's editors. Between 1990
and 1995, half of the editorial board and 19.1 percent of the consulting
editors had not published a single article recorded in the Social
Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). (4) A recent analysis reveals a similar
pattern. Over the entire span of their careers, half of the members of
the editorial committee of Social Work have published four or fewer
articles, as had one-third of the journal's consulting editors. The
weak scholarship of so many of the editors of the profession's
flagship journal contradicts Social Work's commitment to building
an optimal knowledge base for the profession. If scholarly achievement
is not the basis for editorial appointment, then what is? "It is
reasonable to assume that an old boy and old girl professional
acquaintance influence might be involved in the selection process,"
(5) suspected Pardeck and Meinert.

Thus, it is not so surprising that Jim Midgley, a scholar of
international repute, would have an invited article subject to the
vagaries of what passes as editorial practice at Social Work. Years ago
I decided to boycott Social Work because of experiences with such
editorial mismanagement; Midgley's shabby treatment indicates that
little has changed. Instead of ingratiating the Right, would that
NASW's editors and board elected to clean-house and upgrade Social
Work so that it actually delivers to social workers what they deserve:
the best knowledge, evaluated by the best scholars, in the most
expedient manner possible.